U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ----------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format is available on BJS website at: http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4657 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************** Household Burglary, 1994-2011 Jennifer Hardison Walters, M.S.W., Andrew Moore, M.Stat., and Marcus Berzofsky, D.Ph., RTI International Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statistician June 2013, NCJ 241754 ********************************************************** In 2011, U.S. households experienced about 3,394,700 burglary victimizations, a decline from 6,353,700 in 1994. The rate of burglary (attempted forcible entry, completed forcible entry, and completed unlawful entry) decreased 56% from 1994 to 2011, from 63.4 to 27.6 victimizations per 1,000 U.S. households (figure 1). Although declines in the rate of completed burglary were consistent across most characteristics of U.S. households, the greatest declines occurred among households in urban areas (down 63%), those headed by Hispanics (down 67%), and those with an income of $75,000 or more (down 74%). From 1994 to 2011, the largest proportion of burglaries involved completed unlawful entries, in which someone with no legal right to be in the residence entered without use of force. (See Measuring burglary in the NCVS on page 3 for additional definitions of burglary.) ********************************************************** ************* Highlights ************* * The rate of household burglary decreased 56% from 1994 to 2011, from a peak of 63.4 victimizations per 1,000 U.S. households in 1994 to 27.6 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2011. * From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglary decreased by at least half across households headed by persons of all races and Hispanic origin. * Among all completed burglaries, those involving the theft of an electronic device or household appliance increased from 28% in 2001 to 34% in 2011. * In 2011, 58% of completed burglaries were reported to police, compared to 51% in 1994. * Among completed burglaries reported to police, a similar percentage resulted in an arrest in 1994 (8%) and 2011 (10%). * From 1994 to 2011, the median dollar value of items and cash stolen during completed burglaries increased 54%, from $389 to $600 per year. * In 2011, 35% of burglarized households that lost $1,000 or more reported the victimization to an insurance company, while less than 5% of burglarized households that lost $1 to $499 reported the crime to insurance. * From 1994 to 2011, households with an income of $14,999 or less were victimized at a higher rate than households with higher incomes. ********************************************************** The data in this report were drawn from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Interviews are conducted every 6 months over 3 years, with the first interview conducted in person and the follow-up interviews conducted either in person or by phone. The NCVS produces national estimates of rates and levels of violent and property crime victimization, as well as information on the characteristics of crimes and victims and the consequences of victimization. This report presents aggregate estimates of household burglary victimization, with household victimization as the basic unit of analysis. The remainder of this report focuses on completed burglaries. Trend estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Other tables present data from 3 years: 1994, 2001, and 2011, which also represent the average estimates for the 2-year period ending that year. For example, estimates reported for 2011 represent the average estimates for 2010 and 2011. Presenting estimates based on two years of data improves the reliability and stability of comparisons over time and between subgroups. For additional estimates not included in this report, see the NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool (NVAT) on the BJS website. ********************************************************** A third of completed burglaries involved the theft of an electronic device or household appliance in 2011 ********************************************************** Household burglary usually involved theft, and there was relative stability in the percentage of completed burglaries that involved the theft of different types of items (table 1). For instance, the percentage of completed burglaries in which cash, checks, a purse or wallet, credit cards, or bank cards were stolen was relatively stable between 1994 (15%), 2001 (18%) and 2011 (17%). From 1994 to 2011, the largest percentage of completed burglary consistently involved the theft of personal items (such as clothing, furs, luggage, briefcases, jewelry, watches, and keys) and electronics or household appliances (including TVs, DVD players, and protable electronic devices). There was one exception to the stability in the type of items stolen during household burglaries from 2001 to 2011. The percentage of burglaries that involved the theft of a portable electronic device or household appliance increased from 28% to 34%. In comparison, during this same period, the percentage of completed burglaries that involved the theft of a bicycle, bicycle parts, or recreational or sporting equipment declined from 13% to 9%. ********************************************************** From 1994 to 2011, the median dollar value of items and cash stolen during completed burglaries increased 54% ********************************************************** From 1994 to 2011, between 68% and 81% of burglarized households experienced losses of $1 or more as a result of the victimization (appendix table 4). Among households that lost $1 or more during completed burglaries, the median dollar value (inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars) of items and cash stolen increased 54%, from $389 in 1994 to $600 in 2011 (figure 2).***Footnote 1 1Amount of loss was unknown for a small percentage of households, which may result in an underestimation of loss.*** The median dollar value of stolen goods ranged from a low of $366 in 2004 to a high of $618 in 2010, representing a 69% difference. In 2011, the average dollar loss among the 73% of burglarized households that lost $1 or more was about $2,116. (See Methodology for more information on inflation adjustment.) ********************************************************** ******************************** Measuring burglary in the NCVS ******************************** Burglary is the illegal entry or attempted entry of a residence that occurs when the person entering has no legal right to be present. The entry may be by force or without force. Burglary includes illegal entry of a garage, shed, or any other structure on the property’s premises, as well as a hotel or vacation residence. Attempted forcible entry--Force is used in an attempt to gain entry to a residence. Attempted unlawful entry--No force is involved in an attempt to gain entry. An example is jiggling a door knob to see if the door is unlocked. The NCVS does not collect information about attempted unlawful entry. Completed forcible entry--Force is used to successfully gain entry to a residence. Examples include breaking a window or slashing a screen. Completed unlawful entry--No force is used but the residence is entered by someone having no legal right to be on the premises. Examples include entering through an unlocked door or an open window. Completed burglary--Includes completed forcible entries and completed unlawful entries. Completed burglaries do not necessarily involve stolen or damaged property. ********************************************************** **************************************************** Completed burglaries that were reported to police increased from 51% in 1994 to 58% in 2011 **************************************************** From 1994 to 2001, the percentage of completed burglaries reported to police was relatively stable at about 50% (table 2). However, the percentage of completed burglaries reported to police increased from 52% in 2001 to 58% in 2011. Of the 1.6 million burglaries reported to police in 2011, the police came when notified in 85% of victimizations, an increase from 78% in 1994. The percentage of reported burglary victimizations in which the police did not go to the residence declined from 16% in 1994 to 10% in 2011. ***************************************************** From 1994 to 2011, about 10% of reported burglaries resulted in an arrest ***************************************************** Among victimizations in which the police were notified and responded, a greater percentage involved the police taking a report, gathering evidence, or promising investigation or surveillance in 2011 compared to 1994. For example, in 1994, the police took a report in 84% of the completed burglary victimizations to which they responded, compared to 91% in 2011. Of the victimizations in which police came when notified or the victim went to the police, the police promised to investigate or conduct surveillance in about 25% of the victimizations in 2011, compared to 13% in 1994. Among completed burglaries reported to police, the percentage that resulted in an arrest at the scene remained relatively stable between 2% and 4% during the period. In addition, the percentage of reported burglaries that resulted in an arrest at any time in the investigation also remained relatively stable at about 10% in 1994, 2001, and 2011. When analyzed by amount of loss from cash stolen and items stolen or damaged, the percentage that was reported to police remained relatively stable from 1994 to 2011 (figure 3). In 1994, 2001, and 2011, the highest percentage of burglaries reported to police was among victimizations that resulted in losses of $1,000 or more. In 2011, 83% of completed burglaries that resulted in losses of $1,000 or more were reported to police, compared to 68% with losses of $500 to $999, and 38% with losses of $1 to $499. ********************************************************** Of completed burglaries that resulted in monetary loss, the percentage reported to insurance companies increased as the total amount of loss increased ********************************************************** Each year from 1994 to 2011, the percentage of completed burglaries reported to insurance companies rose in accordance with the total amount of loss sustained during the burglary, with the exception of burglaries resulting in no loss (figure 4). Households that lost $1,000 were more likely to report the loss to an insurance company than households that lost $500 to $999, and households that lost $500 to $999 were more likely to report the loss than households that lost $1 to $499. From 1994 to 2011, less than 4% of burglaries resulting in no loss were reported to insurance companies. In 2011, 35% of burglarized households with losses of $1,000 or more reported the loss to an insurance company, compared to 10% of households that lost $500 to $999 and 3% that lost $1 to $499. Reports to insurance companies by burglary victims who experienced a loss of $1,000 or more declined from 1994 (41%) to 2003 (33%), and then remained relatively stable through 2011. Among burglarized households that lost $500 to $999, the percentage that reported the loss to an insurance company also declined, from 22% in 1994 to 10% in 2011. ********************************************************** Among completed burglaries that were reported to the police, the percentage that were also reported to insurance companies increased with the amount of loss ********************************************************** In 1994, 2001, and 2011, burglarized households were more likely to file a claim with an insurance company when the victimization was reported to the police (table 3). Among households that reported a completed burglary to police, the percentage that also reported the victimization to insurance companies increased as the amount of loss increased. In 2011, 7% of households reported a loss of $1 to $499, compared to 14% when the household experienced a loss of $500 to $999, and 42% when the household experienced a loss of $1,000 or more. Households that did not report a completed burglary to police were unlikely to report the burglary to an insurance company, regardless of the amount of loss. In 1994, 2001, and 2011, less than 5% of burglarized households that did not report the incident to police reported it to an insurance company. ********************************************************** From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglary decreased by at least half across households headed by persons of all races and Hispanic origin ********************************************************** From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglary decreased by at least half across households headed by persons of all races and Hispanic origin (table 4). During this period, completed burglaries decreased 57% among households headed by a white non-Hispanic person (from 48.3 to 20.8 victimizations per 1,000 households) and 52% among households headed by a black non-Hispanic person (from 67.3 to 32.2 victimizations per 1,000 households). The greatest decline (67%) in the rate of burglary victimization was among households headed by a Hispanic person, (from 76.0 to 24.9 victimizations per 1,000 households). In 2011, households in which the head of household was a non- Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native (59.8 per 1,000 households) or two or more races (80.5 per 1,000 households) were victimized at a higher rate than households headed by a person of any other race. Burglary rates also declined by at least 50% for households headed by persons of all age groups. In 2011, households headed by a person age 19 or younger had the highest rate of victimization (49.7 per 1,000 households) compared to any other age group. Among various types of household composition, households composed of married couples experienced the greatest decrease (60%) in burglary victimizations from 1994 (42 per 1,000 households) to 2011 (16.6 per 1,000 households). In 2011, households composed of two or more adults (21.0 per 1,000) had a lower rate of burglary than households comprised of a single male (26.8 per 1,000) or female (27.6 per 1,000) adult. ********************************************************** Households with an income of $14,999 or less were victimized at a higher rate than households with higher incomes ********************************************************** Regardless of residence location, the rate of completed burglaries decreased from 1994 to 2011 (table 5). The largest decline (63%) was found among households in urban areas, as the rate declined from 70.9 to 26.3 burglaries per 1,000 households from 1994 to 2011. During the same period, burglaries in suburban areas declined 51% (from 40.4 to 19.8 per 1,000 households), and burglaries in rural areas declined 48% (from 52.5 to 27.2 per 1,000 households). While households in urban areas had the highest rate of burglary in 1994, households in urban areas and rural areas had similar rates of burglary in 2011. Both rates remained higher than the rate of burglary in suburban areas in 2011. From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglaries decreased in households of all income levels. The greatest decline (74%) occurred in households earning $75,000 or more, from 48.2 per 1,000 households in 1994 to 12.7 per 1,000 households in 2011. In 1994, 2001, and 2011, households with an income of $14,999 or less were victimized at a higher rate than households with higher incomes. In 2011, households with an income of $14,999 or less experienced a burglary rate of 45.1 per 1,000 households, compared to 29.7 per 1,000 households earning $15,000 to $34,999, and 12.7 per 1,000 households earning $75,000 or more. Consistent across all three years, households that were renting the residence were burglarized at a higher rate than households that owned the residence. In 2011, the rate of completed burglary was 18.3 per 1,000 households that owned the property and 32.7 per 1,000 households that rented. ********************************************************** Burglary rates by household structural characteristics, 2004–2011 ********************************************************** Several structural characteristics of residences were also associated with variations in household burglary rates (table 6). In the 2004–11 period, residences located in gated or walled communities (20.1 burglaries per 1,000 households) were burglarized at a lower rate than residences not located in gated or walled communities (24.9 per 1,000 households). Similarly, residences with restricted access, such as apartment or condominium buildings with a doorman or reception desk were burglarized at a lower rate (22.3 burglaries per 1,000 households) than those without restricted access (24.7 per 1,000 households). ********************************************************** *************** Methodology *************** Survey coverage ------------------ The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents. Survey respondents provide information about themselves (such as age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, education level, and income) and whether they experienced victimization. The survey collects information for each victimization incident, including data about the offender (such as age, race and ethnicity, sex, and victim-offender relationship), characteristics of the crime (including time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not reported, and experiences with the criminal justice system. Trained interviewers administer the NCVS to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of members who all reside at a sampled address that is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and when they have no other usual place of residence. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in the households are interviewed every 6 months for a total of seven interviews. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in the sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings. Persons living in military barracks and institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities, and the homeless are excluded from the sample. (For more information, see the Survey Methodology in Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS website, May 2011.) In 2011, 79,800 households were interviewed for the NCVS, representing a 90% household response rate. Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States were excluded from this report. **************************************** Weighting adjustments for estimating household victimization **************************************** Estimates in this report use data from the 1993 to 2011 NCVS data files. These files can be weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design. The NCVS data files include both person and household weights. Person weights provide an estimate of the population represented by each person in the sample. Household weights provide an estimate of the total U.S. household population. Both household and person weights, after proper adjustment, are also typically used to form the denominator in calculations of crime rates. Household weights used in this analysis account for repeat victims of series incidents. The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the household, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect detailed information on only the most recent incident in the series. In 2011, about 3% of all victimizations were series incidents. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS website, April 2012. Trend estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Other tables present data from 3 years: 1994, 2001, and 2011, which also represent the average estimates from the 2-year period ending that year. For example, estimates reported for 2011 represent the average estimates for 2010 and 2011. These methods of analysis improve the reliability and stability of estimate comparisons over time. Standard error computations ---------------------------- When national estimates are derived from a sample, as is the case with the NCVS, caution must be taken when comparing one estimate to another or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, the size of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. When the sampling error around the estimates is taken into consideration, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different. One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. In general, for a given metric, an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution. In order to generate standard errors around numbers and estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produces generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The GVF parameters were used in the report to generate standard errors for each point estimate (such as counts, percentages, and rates). BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in estimated numbers and percentages were statistically significant once sampling error was taken into account. Using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for significance. The primary test procedure used was Student’s t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. To ensure that the observed differences between estimates were larger than might be expected due to sampling variation, the significance level was set at the 95% confidence level. Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence interval around each estimate as a measure of the margin of error. The following example illustrates how standard errors can be used to generate confidence intervals: ** According to the NCVS, from 2010 to 2011, there were 26.3 completed burglaries per 1,000 households in urban areas (see table 5). Using the GVFs, BJS determined that the estimate has a standard error of 1.2 completed burglaries per 1,000 households (see appendix table 10). A confidence interval around the estimate was generated by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the confidence interval around the 26.3 completed burglaries per 1,000 households estimate is equal to 26.3 ± 1.2 X 1.96 (or 24.0 completed burglaries per 1,000 households to 28.7 completed burglaries per 1,000 households). In other words, if different samples using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population during the period from 2010 to 2011, 95% of the time the rate of completed burglaries in urban areas would fall between 24.0 and 28.7. In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (interpret data with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%). Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on the results presented. Adjusting for inflation ------------------------ All dollar values in the report are presented in constant 2011 dollars. Estimates were adjusted for 2011 inflation using the consumer price index for all consumers (CPI-U) adjustment factor. The CPI-U is the broadest and most comprehensive consumer price index (www.bls.gov). Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006 ------------------------------------------- Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent that they are not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 are consistent with and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011; and Criminal Victimization, 2011, NCJ 239437, October 2012, are available on the BJS website. Although caution is warranted when comparing data from 2006 to other years, the use of 2-year rolling averages in this report diminishes the potential variation between 2006 and other years. In general, findings do not change significantly if the year 2006 is excluded from the analyses. ********************************************************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Jennifer Hardison Walters, M.S.W., Andrew Moore, M.Stat., and Marcus Berzofsky, D.Ph. of RTI International, and Lynn Langton, Ph.D. of BJS. RTI International verified the report. Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. June 2013, NCJ 241754 ********************************************************** ************************************************ Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************* ************************* 6/12/2013/ JER/ 1:17 *************************